Unsigned State Routes

[bejacob]

Should we consider loosening the precedents on what qualifies as "route signage" good enough to make a route "signed"? For a few that come to mind (might be others):

-- Mini-route signs, like those under milemarkers in Hawaii, or on enhanced milemarkers in other states? Tim thought the ones in Hawaii didn't count. If we decided otherwise, that would move at least two Hawaii state routes (901 on Oahu, 5600 in Kauai) from "unsigned" to "signed".

-- Route numbers included in emergency callbox identification signs. This would grant Bickendan his wish to add CA 259 back to the HB as a signed route. OTOH, those callbox numbers are even less visible to travelers than the mini-markers in the preceding paragraph.

There might be other kinds of more-or-less visible evidence of highway route numbers, such as bridge identification signs (also a little hard for motorists to read at speed), that we might want to think about to more sensibly apply the unsigned routes rule.

Oh goody. Now we've reached the "when is a sign not really a sign?" part of the discussion. 

I'm sure there are many ways to sort out what to include. I'm generally in favor of only including routes with proper shields posted. My next choice would be that if routes that are deemed to be currently unsigned (i.e. the two mentioned for Hawaii) but are still officially designated as part of the state (or other) route system, include them regardless of whether they have shields. Going further down that rabbit hole seems like more trouble just waiting to happen.

Back when Tennessee State Highways (usatn) were under development, a consensus was reached not to included unsigned portions of these state highways. I recall TN8 was split into 2 parts with the unsigned concurrency with US127 omitted. I suggested then keeping the full route with the unsigned portion instead of opting for breaking them up, but that's not what happened. There were maybe a couple dozen similar routes. If unsigned routes end up being added, it may mean revisiting a all of those.

This complete 180 on whether to include unsigned routes is going to have ripple effects in a handful of states. I'm not saying it's wrong to add such routes (I'm still not convinced it is necessary), but it's important to consider all the ramifications.

[US 89]

GA900 seems to be a signed version of the former. But so is, arguably, GA400 - the 4xx series were for hidden designations to refer to interstates, but GA400 never got given its interstate number to be the public-facing number, so the DOT's admin number got shown. That's a difficulty.

The 4xx routes weren't just for interstates. GA 410 is a signed designation for the portion of the Stone Mountain Freeway that got built that is not GA 10. As far as I know, the Stone Mountain Freeway was never supposed to be an interstate east of the interchange that was to be where the Carter Center is now.

There's also GA 422, which is nowhere near an interstate but is sort of silly as it's unsigned and entirely concurrent with 10 Loop in Athens.

[jayhawkco]

Wyoming: There are only three, and all constraints are met.

Is that 14, 74, and 224? I think 14 has been decommissioned (I can check on Monday, but the 2017 maintenance logs don't have a milepost section for it even tho it's on the map).

Off the top of my brain, I was thinking 74, 344, and 346.  I'll look when I get home to see if I missed any.  Some of yours are likely right as well.

Chris

Looks like 14, 74, 334, and 346 are unsigned.  It looks like 224 was decommissioned as far as I can tell. (Not on the most recent AADT data that I downloaded).

Chris

After checking, I saw no evidence that 14 was a state route (mileposts, etc.). I think you mean 344, and 344 + 346 are just internal designations for the two sides of the US-87 washout. So really, the only thing that would be added is the 0.2 ish miles of WY 74 in Saratoga.

14 shows up in the AADT log. (AADT of 211 if you were interested.)

Chris

[rickmastfan67]

Back when Tennessee State Highways (usatn) were under development, a consensus was reached not to included unsigned portions of these state highways. I recall TN8 was split into 2 parts with the unsigned concurrency with US127 omitted. I suggested then keeping the full route with the unsigned portion instead of opting for breaking them up, but that's not what happened. There were maybe a couple dozen similar routes. If unsigned routes end up being added, it may mean revisiting a all of those.

This complete 180 on whether to include unsigned routes is going to have ripple effects in a handful of states. I'm not saying it's wrong to add such routes (I'm still not convinced it is necessary), but it's important to consider all the ramifications.

Oh gosh, don't make me have to redo all of usafl again.  It took awhile just to split out the unsigned segments in the first place.  I don't want to have to go back and redo all the unsigned routes under the US highways & Interstates again.

[mapcat]

Oh gosh, don't make me have to redo all of usafl again.  It took awhile just to split out the unsigned segments in the first place.  I don't want to have to go back and redo all the unsigned routes under the US highways & Interstates again.

If consistency matters on this site, I think you'll have to do this. Also, leaving them out while others are in seems likely to annoy roadgeeks.

[bejacob]

Oh gosh, don't make me have to redo all of usafl again.  It took awhile just to split out the unsigned segments in the first place.  I don't want to have to go back and redo all the unsigned routes under the US highways & Interstates again.

That's one of the points I've been trying to make since this topic first started. There is nothing wrong with usafl or any of the other state systems that have chosen to not include unsigned segments that are concurrent with existing routes in the HB. Such 'gaps' in the routes don't add any new clinchable mileage. The decision was made to exclude them and had been the generally accepted principle when drafting new systems. As near as I can tell, the sole reason for adding them seems to be a sense that omitting them somehow makes the state systems incomplete. In my opinion, that's not a very compelling argument.

Up until recently, the default has been to exclude unsigned routes (with some exceptions). I don't understand why the status quo has suddenly become so controversial.

In the end, the decision will likely have to come from those who maintain the state routes. I'm not even sure there has to be consistency. I can see why that would be preferable, but if some states include such unsigned routes concurrent with others already in the HB while others don't, it won't change significantly how we create our list files. Unsigned routes that don't follow other existing routes might be another story though.

[si404]

Up until recently, the default has been to exclude unsigned routes (with some exceptions). I don't understand why the status quo has suddenly become so controversial.

I've disliked the status quo for over a decade, but I've tolerated it as long as there's been exceptions. The recent stirring up is due to the status quo being disputed by those who viewed the exceptions as unacceptable and wanted them removed. When that was challenged the assumption was, wrongly, that this means that all unsigned state routes should be added.

Just because I'm passionately against the proposal for more aggressive removal of existing active routes that aren't signed, doesn't mean I'm anywhere near as passionately for adding missing routes that have been excluded due to not being signed.

My view is as follows:
1) excluding unsigned routes was not only a bad decision, but created a load of busy work finding unsigned routes to remove them
2) re-adding unsigned routes might give a better user experience, but creates a load of work (with the added annoyance of making all that busy work removing them in the first place pointless) and its not necessarily worth it - I'd like it if they are added, but am not fussed if they aren't.

[cl94]

Up until recently, the default has been to exclude unsigned routes (with some exceptions). I don't understand why the status quo has suddenly become so controversial.

The status quo has been controversial for years. The proposed change to allow blades and EMMs would eliminate half of the controversy right there, because one of the biggest sticking points for people was that a single standalone shield counted as "signed" but half a dozen shields on blades and EMMs didn't count as "signed", a la New Jersey.

I've disliked the status quo for over a decade, but I've tolerated it as long as there's been exceptions. The recent stirring up is due to the status quo being disputed by those who viewed the exceptions as unacceptable and wanted them removed. When that was challenged the assumption was, wrongly, that this means that all unsigned state routes should be added.

Bolded for emphasis. This only became a big discussion because a group of people wanted unsigned Interstates removed from the site.

[SSOWorld]

Up until recently, the default has been to exclude unsigned routes (with some exceptions). I don't understand why the status quo has suddenly become so controversial.

The status quo has been controversial for years. The proposed change to allow blades and EMMs would eliminate half of the controversy right there, because one of the biggest sticking points for people was that a single standalone shield counted as "signed" but half a dozen shields on blades and EMMs didn't count as "signed", a la New Jersey.

I've disliked the status quo for over a decade, but I've tolerated it as long as there's been exceptions. The recent stirring up is due to the status quo being disputed by those who viewed the exceptions as unacceptable and wanted them removed. When that was challenged the assumption was, wrongly, that this means that all unsigned state routes should be added.

Bolded for emphasis. This only became a big discussion because a group of people wanted unsigned Interstates removed from the site.

No.

The big discussion was about I-676 in PA and where it ends on the east side.

[US 89]

Up until recently, the default has been to exclude unsigned routes (with some exceptions). I don't understand why the status quo has suddenly become so controversial.

The status quo has been controversial for years. The proposed change to allow blades and EMMs would eliminate half of the controversy right there, because one of the biggest sticking points for people was that a single standalone shield counted as "signed" but half a dozen shields on blades and EMMs didn't count as "signed", a la New Jersey.

I've disliked the status quo for over a decade, but I've tolerated it as long as there's been exceptions. The recent stirring up is due to the status quo being disputed by those who viewed the exceptions as unacceptable and wanted them removed. When that was challenged the assumption was, wrongly, that this means that all unsigned state routes should be added.

Bolded for emphasis. This only became a big discussion because a group of people wanted unsigned Interstates removed from the site.

No.

The big discussion was about I-676 in PA and where it ends on the east side.

... which then morphed into the discussion on unsigned interstates.

[vdeane]

Up until recently, the default has been to exclude unsigned routes (with some exceptions). I don't understand why the status quo has suddenly become so controversial.

The status quo has been controversial for years. The proposed change to allow blades and EMMs would eliminate half of the controversy right there, because one of the biggest sticking points for people was that a single standalone shield counted as "signed" but half a dozen shields on blades and EMMs didn't count as "signed", a la New Jersey.

I've disliked the status quo for over a decade, but I've tolerated it as long as there's been exceptions. The recent stirring up is due to the status quo being disputed by those who viewed the exceptions as unacceptable and wanted them removed. When that was challenged the assumption was, wrongly, that this means that all unsigned state routes should be added.

Bolded for emphasis. This only became a big discussion because a group of people wanted unsigned Interstates removed from the site.

No.

The big discussion was about I-676 in PA and where it ends on the east side.

... which then morphed into the discussion on unsigned interstates.

Yeah, it may have started with a misunderstanding about I-676 in PA (I thought PA had it on the Vine Street Expressway and FHWA on the bridge; turns out it was the reverse and my discovery of the FHWA map showing it on the Vine Street Expressway was not new information), but it the discussion quickly grew like a California wildfire.

[Jim]

I do think this is a discussion that was due to come up again, given the intent to allow users to restrict stats and maps in the not-too-distant future.  As we've seen, TM isn't going to be exactly what each person wishes it could be, but this (including more unsigned routes but allowing you to omit them from your view) could bring us closer for some people.

[kjslaughter]

I think there's a difference between route designations that are of a sort that are not meant to used for navigation and only exist for internal administration*, and ones that are normal route numbers (in the range that signed numbers are, etc) that just happen to not be signed (perhaps appearing on mile markers).

Totally agree.  Keeping up with all the unmarked state routes sounds like a nightmare.  I vote to just map what's marked, especially if the unsigned route is a duplication of existing routes.

GA900 seems to be a signed version of the former. But so is, arguably, GA400 - the 4xx series were for hidden designations to refer to interstates, but GA400 never got given its interstate number to be the public-facing number, so the DOT's admin number got shown. That's a difficulty.

Georgia freeway numbers are listed on some state maps for reference purpose and on the Georgia DOT page, but except for where they are not an interstate, they are not marked in state and not meant as travel signs.  No reason to include in my mind.  Sadly, some map publishers are showing on maps, like GA 401 on I-75 and it drives me up the wall.

Similar to the 9xx series, in Georgia, the 7xx and 8xx series are meant for internal projects and are almost never signed.  And yet again, because of one map showing one time 40 years ago, GA 754 remains on many a map in Cobb County despite that road never being signed as such.  Another example of insanity to try to map all of those roads as the list is constantly changing as projects are added and completed.

I know North Carolina also is a state that controls every county road, but except on some street signs, I've never seen marked with a shield or highway exit signs.  Would I like those mapped to help show every little place I've ever been?  Maybe.  But the level of effort to do that seems excessive for this site.  I asked once about mapping county roads and was told that was too down in the weeds and difficult to do.  Many of these unsigned state highways feel like the same and a bottom tier road.

I get the impression that making new systems is more fun than maintaining the old so there is a constant pressure to add systems.  I get that.  In my life and job, I hate the maintenance tasks like mowing the grass.  Much more fun to plant new bushes.  But at some point, all that's left to do is just mow the grass, trim the bushes and enjoy the beauty of what you have made.

[michih]

I get the impression that making new systems is more fun than maintaining the old

Yep

[mapmikey]

I have done the wpt file work for several of Virginia's quasi-posted routes.

It seems to me based on this thread that the general consensus is these should be on TM.  The majority of primary routes in Virginia have this posting style in the field - these additional routes happen to have it as their only posting.

Sending them in unless somebody has a convincing reason not to.